Verizon, bandwidth provider blame each other for slow Netflix streaming

What gets me upset with Verizon is, they don't believe customer satisfaction is an advantage for them.

Verizon is like some self-loathing company that hates it's position in the market and then takes out their hate on everyone else.

I don't know why people get funny ideas about why Netflix should pay Verizon, it is Verizon's customers making the request for that data. I understand Verizon likes holding it's customer hostage and using access to their customer's as their bargaining chip, but Verizon needs to remember that they aren't entitled to the customers and they are fighting to provide a service those customers will pay for. Sadly because there isn't competition, those customers don't have an equivalent alternative, so Verizon is able to abuse their customers that way.

If we had a free market where we could choice an ISP that meets our needs this would not be an issue, but as long as we are stuck with a limited number of options and no real competition, we need more regulation.

Users: why is Netflix slow?Cogent: Verizon is throttling your NetflixVerizon: Cogent should give us more money!Netflix: But Verizon, we provide the data to you for free!Verizon: Netflix should give us more money!Ars: Why don't you use OpenConnect from Netflix, which it provides for free?Verizon: We'd love to give you better service...Verizon: Cogent should give us more money!Verizon: Netflix should give us more money!Verizon: OUR streaming doesn't have this issue...

If anything Verizon should shut up before Netflix asks Verizon to pay up for more bandwidth. Which do you think both of their customers want more, their internet connection to be through verizon, or their internet video service to be through Netflix?

The only thing allowing Verizon to whine is that many of their customers don't have a satisfactory alternative to Verizon. With Verizon's lobbying efforts alone it can be shown they have spent alot of money ensuring they have minimal competition.

Being that this is backbone related, is the trafic really destined for Verizon customers or is it just passing through Verizon to get to the local ISP?

Both companies specifically refer to Verizon customers as the ones experiencing the slow speeds. If this was strictly an issue between backbones stuck in the middle of the transaction then the sluggishness would be cropping up all over the place, and if it was just another backbone getting the short end of the stick in having to carry a crap ton of Netflix data that would be completely different, but as it stands Verizon not only knows they are the party requesting a massive load of data but they also know that they are deliberately not assigning proper infrastructure to deliver that content to their paying clients while also demanding to be paid extra money by a third party to cover the costs of their own quality of service.

So Verizon's argument is that because Verizon's customers, in accordance with Verizon's terms of service, download more than they upload, Cogent should pay Verizon? Seems to me that Verizon probably ought to pay Cogent instead since it's Verizon's customers that are driving the traffic.

This is a good point, also if Verizon is offering Streaming Service to customers on its networks and thereby eating up a large portion of the bandwidth, how does that bandwidth use affect the customers who are on the Verizon network but connecting to Netflix?

I'd be surprised to find out that Verizon is not prioritizing its own streaming service data at Netflix's disadvantage.

"While Netflix saves money on transit fees through its Open Connect arrangements, ISPs like Time Warner and Verizon don't seem to think the program offers them any advantages, even if it would help deliver a better video experience to their customers."

This is the bottom line. Better customer experience is irrelevant to the ISPs when there's little or no competition.

While Netflix saves money on transit fees through its Open Connect arrangements, ISPs like Time Warner and Verizon don't seem to think the program offers them any advantages, even if it would help deliver a better video experience to their customers.

Verizon Exec: [Open Connect] only benefits our customers, why the F**K would we want to do that??

Youtube gives me more problems on FiOS than Netflix does. Then again, what I watch on Netflix is usually old Star Trek episodes that are SD anyway…

I have to chime in on this one also. There is something weird with Verizon's YouTube connection. Here's the weird part. I can pull up a YouTube video on my Verizon Wireless phone, connected to WiFi and the video pauses, hitches, and buffers constantly. Pause the video, turn off WiFi, and hit play again, and suddenly the whole video buffers in a matter of seconds and playback is silky smooth. Verizon FiOS vs. Verizon LTE. What the hell?

Youtube gives me more problems on FiOS than Netflix does. Then again, what I watch on Netflix is usually old Star Trek episodes that are SD anyway…

I have to chime in on this one also. There is something weird with Verizon's YouTube connection. Here's the weird part. I can pull up a YouTube video on my Verizon Wireless phone, connected to WiFi and the video pauses, hitches, and buffers constantly. Pause the video, turn off WiFi, and hit play again, and suddenly the whole video buffers in a matter of seconds and playback is silky smooth. Verizon FiOS vs. Verizon LTE. What the hell?

It's called metered billing.

When they can bend you over and have a stroke on you with every bit you download they're happy to give it to you as fast as you'll take it.

I don't know the particulars of internet peering or what ISP should pay whom...but I do know that Verizon has on-demand service directly competing with Netflix. I'm going to go with Verizon being the asshole here.

If we had a free market where we could choice an ISP that meets our needs this would not be an issue, but as long as we are stuck with a limited number of options and no real competition, we need more regulation.

So Verizon wants additional money from Netflix to provide a service that their customer base is already paying for. How bout this Verizon, if you want to charge Netflix then fine, but since you're already being paid for carrying traffic at that point my connection should be free. No? Then quit whining.

RTFA.

Quote:

"Cogent is not compliant with one of the basic and long-standing requirements for most settlement-free peering arrangements: that traffic between the providers be roughly in balance. When the traffic loads are not symmetric, the provider with the heavier load typically pays the other for transit"

This is exactly how peering has worked for about as long as we have been peering networks. The way the Internet works near the core is nothing like buying your cable connection at the edge.

So, let me put this in perspective. When they talk about charging based on each page load, they are being customer centric. When they have to put up with the demands it creates, they go back to traditional mode and refuse to accept the netflix appliances? We all know these big telecom companies get head strong. Only way to teach them is vehemently unsubscribe to their shitty services like I did and support the right ones. Those who have a choice and drool over Verizon's fiber have no right to cry like a baby here.

I'm stuck with Time Warner in my area, its either that or far worse service on AT&T, and for the last couple months I've noticed a lot more "rebuffering" issues watching HD streams on Netflix. However I can run a speedtest and pull down 15-17 megabits from several different test locations while it's "rebuffering"

This tells me it isn't an issue lack of bandwidth, just Time Warner throttling it by not dedicating the ports or bandwidth needed, especially in the evenings. And Youtube is the same way. However anything else just seems to work without issue. Interestingly, Amazon Prime doesn't seem to have these issues, the app might be clunky, but the streams are quite solid.

Probably should not have said that about Amazon, now Time Warner will endeavor to screw it up too.

I am a Verizon FiOS customer and haven't really had any problems with Netflix streaming. There are occasional hickups, but it has been okay for the most part. I don't really use Netflix all that much, though, and we do have one of the more upscale FiOS packages.

I am a Verizon FiOS customer and haven't really had any problems with Netflix streaming. There are occasional hickups, but it has been okay for the most part. I don't really use Netflix all that much, though, and we do have one of the more upscale FiOS packages.

I am also a FIOS customer, and I *do* use a lot of Netflix. I almost never experience problems with it. I'm not paying a huge amount of attention to the quality coming in, but it's usually at least DVD quality*, which I'm fine with.

I also use several other streaming services, some occasionally, and some frequently. I have the fewest problems with Netflix, and the most with YouTube. A family member has frequent problems with HBO Go as well.

I am a Verizon FiOS customer and haven't really had any problems with Netflix streaming. There are occasional hickups, but it has been okay for the most part. I don't really use Netflix all that much, though, and we do have one of the more upscale FiOS packages.

I am also a FIOS customer, and I *do* use a lot of Netflix. I almost never experience problems with it. I'm not paying a huge amount of attention to the quality coming in, but it's usually at least DVD quality*, which I'm fine with.

I also use several other streaming services, some occasionally, and some frequently. I have the fewest problems with Netflix, and the most with YouTube. A family member has frequent problems with HBO Go as well.

Verizon as an very old Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) almost certainly does not have a presence in a "common Internet exchange". that Netflix talks about for peering. Those types of facilities are often were several small and mid tier ISP have their facilities and peer local companies and upstream providers (i.e. Dallas DataMart) . Verizon almost certainly has it's own data centers and paid a significant amount of money to lay fiber to various upstream providers and have the ability to peer and interconnect locally using a large ATM Sonet Ring.

The other problem is the "Free" hardware has a cost to the ISP. Netflix isn't the first CDN to have hosted machines that is a localized proxy. CDN's have been hosting machines at ISPs since the late 90's. What is different is Netflix expects the ISP to bear the costs of hosting the equipment. Most CDN's pay for power and a discounted rate for rack space. Some pay more if they put a Satellite dish on the roof. At the very least Netflix should be willing to pay for power to the equipment (which is quite a bit more than at home since it's online battery backed + generators).

It's a bit more complicated than just money. ...The other problem is the "Free" hardware has a cost to the ISP. Netflix isn't the first CDN to have hosted machines that is a localized proxy. CDN's have been hosting machines at ISPs since the late 90's. What is different is Netflix expects the ISP to bear the costs of hosting the equipment. Most CDN's pay for power and a discounted rate for rack space. Some pay more if they put a Satellite dish on the roof. At the very least Netflix should be willing to pay for power to the equipment (which is quite a bit more than at home since it's online battery backed + generators).

If it was power, backed by batteries, generators et al., and even if disputed costs include rack space at the ISP, then it would be a non-issue. Powering the free equipment is negligible compared to the costs for reaching and maintaining the reach to the ISP.

All this crap that service providers are pulling is freaking annoying. I pay for an internet connection at a given speed. I don't expect there to be any caveats and I REALLY don't expect them to deliberately neuter connections (or allow them to remain substandard when they have the option to upgrade) to services I want at the connection speed I paid for. I realize it's not always that simple, but when the tech is being offered FOR FREE by Netflix, there's no excuse.

Google fiber is coming to an area near me this summer and there's another fiber company that I believe covers my area and is struggling so hopefully Google buys them up too and I can switch over to them.

What is different is Netflix expects the ISP to bear the costs of hosting the equipment. Most CDN's pay for power and a discounted rate for rack space. Some pay more if they put a Satellite dish on the roof. At the very least Netflix should be willing to pay for power to the equipment (which is quite a bit more than at home since it's online battery backed + generators).

Verizon is the one who benefits more from the equipment being in their system than Netflix. Verizon's choice to not values their customer's and the customer satisfaction is why Verizon doesn't see the benefit.

Verizon relies on their customers being stuck without options or they think their customers are just that dumb. If I have the option of Fed-ex, UPS, and USPS, and every time I order something from Amazon it is broken when I go through one particular service (because that service doesn't like Amazon), I don't blame Amazon, I blame that service and use a different one.

This is why ISPs need to be regulated like electric companies. They should be forced to be dumb pipes that sell nothing other than internet access.

This isn't really an efficient use of infrastructure, since Verizon can shove hundreds of channels simultaneously down the pipe whereas IP might be able to fit a couple. ISPs will probably always have a reason to provide some non-IP content, but maybe they "should" get out of the generic TV service business to let streaming services mature. Good luck getting the ISPs to agree, however.

In a world where you stream most or all of your content, a handful of fast-lanes could differentiate the ISPs from each other.

Does that mean mean that Verizon should be paying their customers instead of charging them? After all, they are downstreaming to the end user much more than they are upstreaming (which is by their design, of course).

On a more serious note, cut the crap Verizon. Any semi intelligent person can see through those money grabbing, double dipping BS arguments.

This is exactly why I plan to cancel my FiOS subscription soon. Verizon is the worst, most arrogant company on earth, and none of their divisions, wireless, fiber, or others, deserve a cent from me. Believe it or not I actually feel Comcast is the better community citizen ever since their purchase of NBC, they also offer lower prices and competitive speeds with fiber nowadays. I will be resubscribing with them.

This is why ISPs need to be regulated like electric companies. They should be forced to be dumb pipes that sell nothing other than internet access.

This. This.This. THIS!

To all the major broadband providers, esp. those who run it over coax:

I don't CARE about your damn cable/VoIP/streaming/whatever services. All I am paying you for is a dumb pipe. That's all you should be. You, like the electric company, should have nothing to do with how I choose to use your service - you should only provide the service as I pay for it, and fix any problems that arise with regard to providing said service.

It's a bit more complicated than just money. ...The other problem is the "Free" hardware has a cost to the ISP. Netflix isn't the first CDN to have hosted machines that is a localized proxy. CDN's have been hosting machines at ISPs since the late 90's. What is different is Netflix expects the ISP to bear the costs of hosting the equipment. Most CDN's pay for power and a discounted rate for rack space. Some pay more if they put a Satellite dish on the roof. At the very least Netflix should be willing to pay for power to the equipment (which is quite a bit more than at home since it's online battery backed + generators).

If it was power, backed by batteries, generators et al., and even if disputed costs include rack space at the ISP, then it would be a non-issue. Powering the free equipment is negligible compared to the costs for reaching and maintaining the reach to the ISP.

I've worked for very large ISPs. Ones that had CDN hosted. I can say that most of them had five figuring hosting bills per month. That's for many data center sites nationally and it represented a discount compared to a company buying Us of rack at list.

Netflix has done well because upstream bandwidth keeps getting cheaper. They can do what other CDNs were doing in the early 2000s for a fraction of the cost because at the time they could get similar throughput to the last mile by having a presence in handful of really well connected data centers.

The issue for them on Verizon is they are hitting technical limitations. They could diversify a bit more so they spread the load along more upstream providers.

All that being said, this is light years different from cable companies that actively shape the bandwidth to choke Netflix.

"Cogent is not compliant with one of the basic and long-standing requirements for most settlement-free peering arrangements: that traffic between the providers be roughly in balance. When the traffic loads are not symmetric, the provider with the heavier load typically pays the other for transit"

"Editor’s note: .... However, an observant Peering Coordinator noticed that the Level3 Peering Requirements no longer include explicit peering ratios to be maintained ."

Transit by definition is data moving across your network to another network. Unless Cogent is offloading Netflix data to be routed to non-Verizon customers, it's not transit.

I can understand a 'hot potato' routing, where Cogent offloads data that needs to travel far across Verizon's network, but they have a lot of peering points with each other. If this is the case, then Verizon should just come out and say "Cogent needs to route the data themselves to the nearest peering point, then offload".

If Verizon is that set against Cogent sending that much Netflix data, then Verizon can use their peering points with Level 3 Comm to transfer the data. But I know L3 is not going to pay because L3 is another Tier 1 ISP and T1's never pay for peering.

Either way, Verizon has a few choices here, Get Netflix from Cogent or get Netflix from Level 3. They have to get it from someone. L3 is not going to pay.

In the end, Netflix is a service Verizon's customers want. It seems Verizon is more set about not getting paid twice for Netflix, both from the customers and from Cogent, than providing the customers a valuable service.